Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Integrated Financial Group, Inc.
ORDER granting 31 Motion for Entry of Default; denying 24 Motion for Determination of Law. by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 1/6/14.(rbjcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03319-RBJ
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDING INC.,
INTEGRATED FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. moves for entry of default against the defendant,
Integrated Financial Group, Inc. The motion [CM/ECF docket entry #31] is granted, and
therefore, Integrated Financial Group’s motion for determination of law [#24] is moot.
Between 2005 and 2008 Integrated originated various mortgage loans which it in turn
submitted to lenders like Lehman Brothers Bank or affiliates for underwriting and funding.
Integrated agreed to indemnify Lehman Brothers in the event that any representations or
warranties with respect to the loans proved to be false. Lehman Brothers’ rights under the
agreements with Integrated were later assigned to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI).
LBHI here asserts that Integrated breached representations or warranties with respect to
one such mortgage loan, “**** (Connor).” The borrower, presumably Connor, apparently
defaulted. LBHI now seeks indemnification by Integrated for its loss on the loan, that the
borrower misrepresented that he was occupying the subject property; misrepresented his
financial condition by omitting to disclose two additional mortgages; and failed properly to
verify his employment.
Integrated initially answered the complaint, through counsel; participated in a scheduling
conference; and moved for a determination of law regarding the applicable statute of limitations.
LBHI responded. However, before the Court reviewed the motion, Integrated’s counsel moved
to withdraw, noting that Integrated had not fulfilled its financial obligations to counsel. The
motion was granted with the proviso that Integrated could not represent itself and would have to
be represented by counsel in its continued defense. Approximately six weeks later LBHI filed
the pending motion for entry of default, noting that no counsel had appeared for Integrated, and
that it was therefore unable to proceed with discovery. LBHI’s certificate of conferral pursuant
to local rule 7.1A indicated that Ari Sadoff, President of Integrated, had stated that he was in the
process of closing the business and liquidating its assets, causing a delay in Integrated’s
obtaining counsel, but that Mr. Sadoff did not state a position on the motion.
On December 6, 2013 the Court issued an order to Integrated to show cause by January 3,
2014 as to why plaintiff’s motion for entry of default should not be granted and why Integrated’s
motion for a determination of law should not be denied as moot. Integrated has not responded to
the order to show cause, nor has it filed a response to the motion for entry of default, nor has
counsel entered on Integrated’s behalf.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Integrated is in default of its
obligations with respect to the defense of this case. Accordingly, motion #31 is granted, and
motion #24 is denied as moot. The Court directs the Clerk’s Office to enter a default. The
plaintiff will still have to file a motion for entry of a default judgment and provide proof of
damages, with notice to Mr. Sadoff on behalf of Integrated
DATED this 6th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?